Re: Int154/185/184 get a bad rap?

Thu May 05, 2011 8:37 am

its pretty obvious that they were landscaping, grounds keeping vehicles. its a big lawn mower. it can tow a trailer for my wife's mulch and pine straw or for picking up broken tree limbs after our annual tropical storm or hurricane. but thats why i bought it. as a lawn mower.

Re: Int154/185/184 get a bad rap?

Thu May 05, 2011 8:54 am

IH marketed the Cub 154 and the others in the herd as Estate type tractors. They are not and were never expected to be a farm tractor -- they are lawn/yard care machines. To expect a Numbered Cub to function as both a lawn/yard care machine and a farm tractor is irrational. As a yard care machine the 154 and siblings apparently do a great job. They mow grass, plow snow, throw snow, haul yard waste and other hauling chores quite nicely from all reports. For the ag implements available I would assume that they were designed not so much for farming but tillage for flower beds etc. That is what I see a Numbered Cub used for, certainly not cultivating my garden. Course that is JIMHO.

Re: Int154/185/184 get a bad rap?

Thu May 05, 2011 11:23 am

I think the int154 could easily cross over into the farm use with its dual brakes, the rear PTO tiller and the 3pt hitch. I think for its size its still a great grounds keeper on an estate. Havine the creeper and the 3pt rear hitch opened up the int154 for and use. Plus the live PTO that was a big improvement.

Re: Int154/185/184 get a bad rap?

Thu May 05, 2011 11:32 am

I'm rebuilding my PTO right now and it just had wornout ingagement bearings and everything else looks great. To me its a great setup. The PTO clutch setup is a safety between the PTO drive and the attachment. Other wise its a direct drive which i really don't want. Not having a clutch between the drive and attachment puts an extra shoch and more wear on the driven parts without it. The onlt improvement i could see is a wet clutch setup like the gravely tractors had they used the same princable.

Re: Int154/185/184 get a bad rap?

Sat May 07, 2011 7:38 pm

It took a bit to get my two 154's up to good operating condition after years of neglect and abuse. They are good machines, if you use them for what they are intended for, mowing grass and associated finish yard work. They are not made for plowing, pulling stumps or running through the woods chopping up everything they can push over. I've seen around 8 of the 154-184 design, compared to about 20 of its more traditional counterparts in my County while out and about scouting the next tractor to bring home. When you compare how long of a time frame each design rolled off the line, I'd say, at least for my area, the later model Cubs out sold the earlier ones. My beef.... A bit more time could have been put into the engineering and design of the frame IMO...

Re: Int154/185/184 get a bad rap?

Mon May 09, 2011 10:11 am

RaymondDurban wrote:It took a bit to get my two 154's up to good operating condition after years of neglect and abuse. They are good machines, if you use them for what they are intended for, mowing grass and associated finish yard work. They are not made for plowing, pulling stumps or running through the woods chopping up everything they can push over. I've seen around 8 of the 154-184 design, compared to about 20 of its more traditional counterparts in my County while out and about scouting the next tractor to bring home. When you compare how long of a time frame each design rolled off the line, I'd say, at least for my area, the later model Cubs out sold the earlier ones. My beef.... A bit more time could have been put into the engineering and design of the frame IMO...

Being retired from one of the top ten engineering groups in the country(USA) here as a test lab lead tech/welder/fabricator and one some engineers look to for answers when there stumped on a design i noticed when i disassembled my on going 154 fel/backhoe project some area's are missing welds. I think they did just enough fabricating to get by. Back then we didn't have a CAD computer to go by with the stress analysis option to help in the design.This could give them information on the stress points are on the computer in there design and were to add more strength. We must understand the frame is mean't to flex in certain areas or it would crack, but the front axle bracket area is missing welds were it really matters. I did box the front end of the grame connecting the left and right frame rails. I also welded the frome axle bracket to the cross gusset above it too. This cross gusset only has welds on one side of each frame rail too. I welded both sides too. Now i may have a little more weld tha whats required but i'm sure nothing will break or crack after all its the subframe that holds it all together anyway with the FEL/Backhoe. I did and do notice a lot of frame flex in my int154's too. They seem to flex more than my cub cadets too in off camber situations. It's ok to have some flex but i don't push them past there positive stops on the front axle. We need to watch how much off camber we go too. The 154 & other number series tractors are mean't for even ground or slightly hilly "estate" mowing anyway. There not an off road brush haking machine. I feel even the Farmall Cub is for the same light duty work too. Both Cubs have there designs lacking something. I could pick on both of them for flaws but i won't compare them, because there two different tractors.

The 154/numbered series out sold the fcub in numbers if we look at the IH production number and compare them in sales is because the estate owner didn't want a farm looking trator on his estate. He wanted a sleek looking sheetmetal dressed tractor more like a cub cadet on steroids. Something more modern looking not a blast from the past. Plus i think the all castiron look may scare people too with its intimidating muscle look.

Lets face it the 154 / 184 /185 shine at mowing estates while the farmall cub really shines at cultivating crops. I see that most of the farms here use a larger tractor thats lower in height for plowing dirt while the "highboy" fcub is setup for cultivating.

Stress analysis on the computer is ok if we use it and understand it. Years ago we would just overkill the designs so they lasted a lifetime. Well to me longer than what they last today quality wise. The japanese motorcycles are a very good example of before and after stress analysis. There 70's and 80's motorcycles were way over built. This is why there still around today. The 750cc engine of the 70's/80's isn't the 750cc of today its more powerful and lighter in weight, while the 70's/80's engine to me was bullet proof and heavier, plus these will last forever. The newer bikes are built on the just on the edge using stress analysis. Back in the mid 80's GM tried to cut back doing a cost reduction on the amout of castiron they used in there engine blocks. There still having problems with engines cracking to this day. (blocks & manifolds) Like i said its ok to use the stress analysis but you need to understand it and what its telling you. Some companies miss the whole idea of using stress analysis and some still don't use it at all. This is why bad products still go out the door today.

Now when fabricating and designing something all the strength is in the vertical placement of the steel and welds. You need to use the steel in the widest/highestvertical position thats were the strength is.

Example; OCC "orange county choppers" built and installed a crane over one of there cnc machines. They laid the C Channel down flat, in a horizontal position not using the steel in the widest vertical position were the strength is. It does nothing for added strength and there losing the strength of it using it that way. For them being iron workers i don't understand them doing this. The vertical welds are the strongest too. This is why the frame rails are the highest/widest in its vertical position thats were the strength is.

Re: Int154/185/184 get a bad rap?

Mon May 09, 2011 11:44 am

Bill:

Don't want to nitpick, but if we are going to make production statements they really have to be accurate.

IH built 253,184 Farmall/IH Cubs over it's production life. Probably the most prolific model ever produced.IH Built 25,497 IH Cub Lo-Boys over it's production lifeIH built 29.171 IH Cub Lo-Boy 154's over it's production life.IH built 6,346 IH Cub Lo-Boy 185's over it's production life.IH built 4,224 IH Cub Lo-Boy 184's over the first 2 years of production and I would guestimate that maybe half to equal that amount for the last 2 years of production bringing it to around similar numbers to the 185.

With the total Lo-Boy production probably sitting around 41,863 units, the Numbered Cub production is substantially less than the combined production of the Farmall Cub in 1947-1948. Considering that there are over a quarter million Farmall/IH Cub units produced,

Big Bill wrote:The 154/numbered series out sold the fcub in numbers if we look at the IH production number and compare them in sales is because the estate owner didn't want a farm looking trator on his estate. He wanted a sleek looking sheetmetal dressed tractor more like a cub cadet on steroids. Something more modern looking not a blast from the past. Plus i think the all castiron look may scare people too with its intimidating muscle look.

The only Cub that the 154 Lo-Boy series outnumbered was the IH Cub Lo-Boy and only because IH ended production and superseded the Lo-Boy with the Numbered Series. That is probably what you meant, but it was a nice exercise for me.

Again, IH designed the Numbered Series strictly for the estate management market. It is not designed to do anything else .... it is a great mower, snow thrower and can do other yard maintenance chores. One thing it is not is a farm tractor.

Re: Int154/185/184 get a bad rap?

Tue May 10, 2011 9:33 am

I always thought the Farmall H was the highest produced Farmall tractor not the cub. I am surprised the low-boys was such low sellers, I may start looking for one!

My family were coal miners not farmers but my experience looking at my neighbors that were farmers and my 3-4 years as a farm laborer showed no cultivating and no cubs. My employers and neighbors likely would have described a cub, 154 or f-cub as a lawn tractor or city slicker tractor. They would have been too small to be useful. You can farm without cultivating and you do not need to be a farmer to use a tractor. I am not a farmer or a pretend farmer so have no use for plowing or cultivating but I do need to cut grass. I have a few thousand hours riding in circles on both the numbered series and offset cub and I prefer the numbered series by far. They appear well built, good clutch and pto clutch, a real PTO, and I prefer a tractor with a frame. I will occasionally use a middlebuster with the 3-point hitch and it does the same as my f-cub with a 3 point hitch. IHC did offer a plow and disc for the 154 so someone must have thought it could be used for farming. If I had the need to plow a big area I would just get a 3 point plow and I expect it would do just fine.

One size or type does not fit all. My newest 154 I have had for 6 months or so and have roughly 10 hours time on it. My oldest f-cub has been with me for over 15 years and I put somewhere around 1 hour total running time on it. The numbered series fits my needs much better. For others who may have a small garden and want to cultivate then a f-cub may be a better fit. Or get one of each.

I heading out this week to go to New York to buy some of Mikey's artwork. Probable worth more than some of OCC's bikes!